cuts host: several sequester plans are circulating around capitol hill. the president will meet at the white house tomorrow about the sequester and our washington journal is focused on this issue. the sequester is taking effect tomorrow. (202) 585-3880 four publicans. (202) 585-3881 for democrats. (202) 585-3882 for all other. you can contact us on facebook

or send us an e-mail. here is the front page of the "washington times" this morning. sharing the stage, president obama and john boehner is today. joining us on the phone is ed o'keefe who is a reporter for the "washington post" -- bring us up-to-date on the sequester. guest: we are waiting to see what happens on friday where leaders will get together to sort out a way to move forward and the blunt the impact of the cuts or stave them off entirely. it will be a date -- date not entirely focused on this. all of them are going to fail. the democratic plan would direct

payments to farmers, part of the farm bill in the house. taxes would go up on americans making $5 million a more -- or more a year. more flexibility to the obama flip -- administration. several senators disagree with this. that means there is exposed fissures among republicans in the senate who could not agree on a replacement plan to vote on. this issue continues to be, gay. host: -- the speaker has been saying for weeks of the senate has to act first.

the house will focus on other issues. host: i want to ask you about bob woodward. here is the politico story. woodward at war. he is saying that a white house aide warned him. what is the talk any newsroom about this? guest: i will tell you i spent most of my time at the capital. i talk to people about it. he is a well sourced reporter. he has written several pieces for our section. the origins of the sequester. he is like everyone else, in interaction with the white house when necessary. any reporter who has dealt with the white house knows it -- exchanges can be intense. he has received some of that reaction that white house

officials are known to share when they are not happy about the way things are being reported. host: what is the mood about tomorrow's meeting at the white house? guest: they are quite upset to wait until friday to hold this meeting. this signals that the white house does not seem to have much art as the to address this issue. there were replays of comments the president made. that is basically the attitude everyone has. if you look at this schedule, the house is scheduled to leave today after three o'clock. the senate is excited to leave today as well. in talking with some senators and members of the house, where they will be this weekend, most are heading home. most don't have full schedules at all. they kept the window open.

it is a down weekend for most lawmakers who will go home or stay in washington and not necessarily do anything immediate to dress -- address this issue. host: one issue coming up is the budget in march. what is the status on capitol hill? guest: they are continuing. in march, we will see paul ryan's plan -- plan. the expectation is that normal order will be held to strike a deal on a fiscal year .14. --2014. you have this sequestration issue. you have the need to pass a continuing route -- resolution. you are also thinking ahead to october 1 when the new fiscal year begins. there is hope that even though there is squabbling about fiscal matters, in october perhaps the

reset button will be hit and things will return to the normal budget and normal appropriations. we have to wait and see. what budget people are curious to see is how paul ryan would you raise the debt -- deficits over the next decade. indications are he is working on a plan that would require dramatic cuts in government spending. also increases and taxes. people will be watching and knowing full well that the house republicans will give it it's a blessing. we will have to wait to see if the senate strike a similar deal. host: do you know -- is the house leadership talking with the senate leadership? guest: we note that harry reid

and john boehner speak on a river basis. they try to speak once a week. there were conversations before recess about the possibility of all this. we don't know but perhaps there were discussions on the sidelines of the rosa parks statue unveiling yesterday. the house majority leader have been firm. the senate we'll -- we'll deal with it great otherwise, it does not look like there will be significant progress. we have to wait and see. the way it works, sometimes these conversations are ongoing. somebody is coming to the floor or a bill can be brought up and things can get moving again. we are in a wait and see mode. otherwise, we are waiting to see things go at the white house and whether lawmakers will jump in on friday or wait until next week. host: thank you for your time.

ed o'keefe for the washington post. the "washington times" here is president obama and speaker boehner. never let it be said that president obama has failed to spend time with the begin leaders in seeking an alternative to budget cuts that will hit most federal departments on friday. on wednesday, --

a politico this morning, another story. bob called a senior white house official. he was going to question barack obama --

host: that is invalid to go to. here is the "new york times" story the --

host: tennessean, republican line. you are first up. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. this is nonsense, when you think about it. president obama has been in office for the last 4.5 years. $85 billion is nothing if you continue to let him spend. we will be up to a trillion dollars before you know it. he remind me of a husband and wife to get a credit card. the husband says, we have a $5,000 limit. don't spend it all in one place.

she goes out and three days later it is. she says i need to buy this new address or by that. he says to her, you know, give me that credit card. you don't know how to manage money. that is the problem i have with president obama. we have the wrong man in office to solve our problem. about of the third of the country are unemployed because we don't have the money to pay our bills. thank you. host: danny, you're on the washington journal. caller: good morning. everybody needs to keep this in perspective. this sequester and the fiscal cliff and all these crises are part of a comprehensive attack that republicans want to destroy the entitlement programs.

they have been trying to starve the beast. they want to eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps. if you listen to all of them, they think it is time to pull the trigger and get rid of all those programs. they have hated them since fdr created them in the first place. he has meetings every week with the republicans to discuss this larger strategy of destroying entitlement programs. everybody needs to be aware of that. republicans are going to find out that when social security gets cut, if they are not getting a check, their mom or their cousin or their neighbor is or customers of their business. it is going to absolutely destroy the economy. people need to be aware that. it is coming at us and we better be ready. host: thank you. our facebook page says --

host: if you would like to continue the conversation on our facebook page, go to our facebook page. what do you think about the sequester taking effect tomorrow? caller: good morning. thank you for thinking my call. i am amazed. here we go. we have another ground zero emergency again. it amazes me that we have this

major -- it was unavoidable. they wait until -- it is going to be a meeting tomorrow. friday, it is supposed to happen. i voted for obama. i voted for obama again. the first time, i am thinking congress is giving him a fit. they are giving him a fit again. these are like to stubborn side. to hear speeches of finger- pointing, is amazing. they're going to take a break. they're going to have a nice weekend, some were very nice. the average taxpayer is going to bite their nails wondering about their jobs and how it is going to affect them. yet, they have enough money somewhere else they can afford to take a break. we even let them to work for us.

instead, they are just toying with us. it is frustrating. host: that was maryland on our independent line. some tweets on this issue -- how does obama get away with blaming everyone else for his actions? he has made accusations that are just not true. i never pegged him for a conservative, but his credibility is gone. i just can't believe the gop. they're just so childish. it is 2.4% of the budget. it is not the end of the world, says ohio republican representative jim jordan. obama is not a leader, he is a cheerleader. who is the idiot that decided congress only works every other week? it will destroy them politically

in the november 2016 elections. here is the front page of the "washington journal" -- david, you are the washington journal. caller: i was summing through my world almanac. i have been subscribing to this forever. it is a good source. anyway, in this book there is a federal labor relations authority. there is a national labor relations board, which i don't know if there is a dime difference. i bet you there is consolidation there. one more thing, i was surprised to see -- i would have thought defense is the biggest budget. it is not. it is just under 700 dollars billion -- $700 billion i see

it as a spending problem. it is a -- the only way to give a start and everybody to take a position and negotiate from there, let it be that. host: wall street journal, carl rove -- host: the federal budget is now

-- host: that is the bill that the senate will be voting on today.

host: that is from the hill newspaper. donna is from minnesota, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for your programming. i appreciate it. i have been paying attention for the past few weeks. i appreciate everything you are

doing for us. my biggest concern is that we have a legislative branch and this congress is supposed to be taking care of us. we have voted for them. they are not doing their job. they are arguing and bickering over every little penny. i am concerned about americans because it is dividing our country greatly. everyone is a blaming president obama. people are not coming together. i feel we have to come together as citizens of the united states of america and lay aside our party differences. we are going to need each other in the coming days. there is going to be hard times for everyone. i am really very, very frustrated with what our congress is doing. there is gun control -- there is all these things going on but

no one is thinking about the senior citizens that may not have meals come to their home. the people in nursing homes that -- there may not be money for them. i don't understand how social security and medicare became entitlements. they are not entitlements. my mother has worked her whole life. she needs that money. she paid into the system. is not an entitlement. there is no budget. i just feel we have to somehow vote for the correct people that are going to do something and be a voice for us. host: donna in minnesota. a new poll just released this morning. a majority of the united states state sequestration will harm the economy. the top number here,

guest: sarah, went nowhere. caller: good morning. for heaven's sake, i never dreamed it would be cutting for things that are so important like defense, like education. we talked about the pain that is going to come to a lot of citizens in our country. where is the pain for the members of congress? where is the pain for ex- presidents? where is the pain for president obama who is going to be an ex- president in three years? the ex-presidents get a fortune. bill clinton was on tv not too long ago. he is worth about $220 million.

he does not need our money. members of congress, they could pay half of their -- or even more than half of their medical insurance. they could pay for their staff from what they get. it is just not right. i am a publican, a former democrat, a former -- an independent. i am where i should be. i want less government. i want limited government. they are talking about taking money away from important things. by the way, can't david -- camp david shaw -- camp david should be gotten rid of. host: key housesitter -- conservatives say they can support measure to fund the government.

host: that is a little bit about the budget process which we

will be hearing about a lot more in the coming weeks as march 2 seven it's closer. an article in the wall street journal this morning, texas pardon -- tax stand -- tax stances harden.

host: the next call comes from bradley. and independent. the sequester take effect tomorrow. caller: i just wanted to call in to point out that in the documentary, he saw this happening. he knew this was going to happen. he said there were going to be cuts in the defense. i do believe this country needs to make major cuts. at a time when north korea -- they are testing missiles that could hold nuclear warheads, this is not the right thing to be doing. in the movie 2016, the vice

president's -- the vice president was written off as being borderline insane. most things were going along with what is going on in this country. it needs to be given the credit it deserves. that is all. host: joe says it is sad when a presidential administration needs to intimidate a journalist. it is not surprising. they are failed communists. gop does not want blame. no leadership. read the constitution. host: in the usa today --

host: san diego, republican. good morning. caller: when the rebel against

-- they want to pick it -- and choose what could be cut. obviously, he does not want that kind of flexibility. he does not want to make any decision when it comes to cutting anything. the funny thing to me is, he keeps talking about taxing the rich and getting more revenues that way. are there any left in this country? i am surprised anybody has any money anymore. this whole thing about the sequester is a big joke. no one is going to notice it. that is what he is afraid of. he keeps talking about how it is going to be a drain on the economy. one month from now, it is going to be the second quarter. we going to have negative growth. he wants to be able to blame the republicans for the recession that his company -- coming.

i hope in march when without about the budget for next year, but the republicans stand firm and play hardball with him until he loses again. host: op ed this morning, regular communal -- columnist for the newspaper --

host: alexandria, virginia. democrat. what do you think about the sequester taking effect morrow -- tomorrow? caller: good morning. we are being jilted as gershwin wrote. it is breaking the baseline of -- when you say jobs, it should have been taking defense -- putting those people to work and fixing the roads and the levees. we spend more than anybody else in the world together. while the banks and wall street

are flourishing at just the basic parts of healthcare and the teachers who is that -- been spending hundreds of dollars a year over the years for basic stuff for pencils and paper. it is not taxes and not jobs. it is fluctuating in his 20/20 vision of the have and have- nots. it should be a worldwide -- i wish it would be a universal law. an international court, that every country going gold -- dwindled 90%. we are not attacking israel's 70 or 80 nuclear weapons and ir

an's problem. that seems to dominate the journalism aspect of things. host: thank you. more tweets. this is steve. host: dan and pennsylvania, independent line. what are your thoughts? caller: i've you the sequester as a joke. these spending cuts, they don't need to be the way they are. we have a conservative party,

the democrats and an extreme conservative party which is the republicans. i would like to see a liberal they say why don't we cut department of home security, bring our soldiers home from germany and across europe. make big spending cuts, get rid of corporate -- keep medicare and social security. the president is saying that medicare and social security cuts are on the table. they are arguing about raising taxes by two percent or leave them the way they are. taxes under eisenhower were 90%. this is ridiculous speaking of progressive taxes and spending cuts that would not affect social security and medicare when we don't need it. host: from the washington times, kevin brady. obama cries robbery.

host: that is a little bit of the kevin brady from the "washington times.

caller: obama is going around and -- if the sequester goes through, he says the sky is going to fall. the greatest fear the democrats have is if the sequester goes through that nothing will happen. then the iraqi people will say, well, -- then the american people said the sky is going to fall and nothing happened, well how about we cut more. he just wants to spend the money. that is all. that is all i have to say. you have a good day. host: thank you for calling and this morning. ann arbor, michigan -- democrat. caller: good morning.

your name is peter? host: yes, ma'am. caller: there was a lady that called in pertaining to the pain for president clinton, where is the pain for president obama now. i would like to say where is the pain for president bush? where is the pain for dick cheney? i feel that everyone -- the ones that call in -- they are against president obama. he is trying to do the best he can. i am against the sequester. i don't believe there's going to be one. i really don't. i really don't. the the republicans are going to cave in before march 1, which is tomorrow. host: that is an arbor michigan,

a first time caller. the president spoke to business leaders last night in washington dc. here is a little bit of what he thought about with regard to the sequester. [video clip]>> this is going to be a big hit on the economy, both private sector as well as public sector. economists are as to meeting we could lose as much as .6% of a point, maybe more of economic growth. that means inevitably hundreds of thousands of people were not going to get jobs who otherwise would get them. it means that you have fewer customers with money in their pockets ready to buy your goods and services. it means that the global economy will be weaker because although we have a long way to go in recovery, we are doing smith to play better than other developed nations.

the worst part of it is it is entirely unnecessary. it is not what we should be doing. host: from the "national journal" -- host: in other news, this is from "news day" --

host: the hill newspaper reports this morning that the white house says it did not approve release of illegal immigrants. the white house on wednesday said it did not prove the release of hundreds of illegal immigrants. host: kevin is in windsor, connecticut. what are your thoughts? caller: once again, the middle

class gets beat in that. they don't want to give in on tax loopholes. it is all about elections. they threw christie right underneath the bus. he was doing his job, what he got elected to do. republicans should take lessons on what the governor is doing in new jersey. they still don't get it. that is all i have to say. host: from "politico" -- host: the lead story this morning in the "new york times" is about a court case.

host: joe in tulsa, republican line. what are your thoughts about the sequester taking effect morrow? -- tomorrow? caller: does the country have more money to spend after the sequester that he had last year ? the answer is, it does have more money scheduled to be spent after sequester. $15 billion according to what phil gramm said this morning, the whole language is turned upside down. people are not asking the question, is government spending going down after the sequester compared to the previous years. for a family to say, ok, i am planning to spend 10,000 more dollars this year than last year but i don't have that much

income so i'm only going to spend $2000 more than last year, that is a cut in the which that is currently being used. people need to ask that question. there should be no panic because they are actually having more money to spend. host: that is joe in tulsa. the "washington post" --

host: again, that is in the "washington post" this morning. coming up, the conversation on the sequester continues. we will get two different viewpoints. first, matt salmon. after that, adam smith. he is the ranking member, top democrat on the armed services committee in the house. first, i want to show you this front page in "usa today" --

this is the rosa parks statue unveiled. you can see the president down here. here is a few of the president's remarks regarding rosa parks. [video clip]>> this is how change happens, not only from the exports of the famous and the powerful but through the countless acts of often anonymous courage and kindness and fellow feeling and responsibility that continually expand our conception of justice. our conception of what is possible. singular act of disobedience launched a movement. the tired feet of those who walked the dusty roads of montgomery held a nation see

that to which it had once been blind. it is because these men and women that i stand here today. it is because of them that our children grow up in a land who are free and more fair. a land truer to its founding creed. that is why this statue belongs in this hall, to remind us that matter how humble or lofty our positions, just what it is that leadership requires. just what it is that citizenship requires. rosa parks would've turned 100 years this month. we do well by placing a statue of her here. but, we can do no greater honor

to her memory then to carry forward the power of her principal -- principle and encourage one of conviction. [applause]now joining us on the washington journal is a matt salmon, or public in arizona. he served three terms previously. it has been 12 years since you have been here. guest: it is been a while. a lot of changes and a lot have stayed the same. i was in congress before we had a divided government. i left during the tenure of bill

clinton. bill clinton was elected in 1992. i was elected in 1994. i served from that 94 to -- 1994 to 2000. this president is less to reach across the aisle than president clinton. during the term of clinton and when i was in congress, we balanced the budget the first time in 40 years. we balance it three years in a row. when i left, we had a surplus. we also passed my mental welfare reform. reducing the welfare ranks in this country by over 50%. that was done with a democrat president. we also passed the defense of marriage act. host: a lot of differences. president clinton seemed more willing to work for the benefit of the market people in a far less partisan way. host: that was a lot different time.

newt gingrich would speak and many of those years. a shutdown happened during that time. is republican leadership different today? guest: i think the were broken leadership -- the republican leadership is very similar to what it was when i was in congress before. one of the reasons we were able to get to a balanced budget was of the government shutdown because americans saw over the three weeks that the government was shut down that they did not -- not miss much of anything. they also realize that maybe we could tighten our belts. maybe we could balance the budget. president clinton took the majority a lot serious after that. it led to a balanced budget in 1997. host: the sequester is due to take effect tomorrow. what are your thoughts? guest: rather than engaging the

blame game of who is responsible for the sequester, i think we need to talk about where we go from here. we are going to pass a continuing resolution, probably within the next week or so, to provide flexibility to all levels of government so they can manage through this process and it does not have to be an across-the-board cut of "" -- x percent. the overpayment on food stamps into the billions and billions of dollars. we believe these are wasteful and hurtful and they can be cut. we give the agency's be kind of authority they need to go in and manage this crisis.

i would like to say this, and our own state, arizona, in 2008, governor brewer inherited a situation from the prior governor. the brunch -- the budget was in a deficit. host: governor napolitano? guest: because of economic situations, the buzz it -- the budget was in economic disarray. let me tell you, in real dollars, five years ago, the arizona budget was north of $11 billion. this year, the budget is right around $8 billion. me be a little more. substantial cuts. far more than we are talking about here. there was not blood in the streets. we were able to manage through that. all the governors across the country had to.

many had balanced budget requirements built into their constitutions. and washington, that is not the case. the real spending here in this country in the last four years has gone up after being adjusted for inflation over 800 dollars per person over the last four years. that is how much spending has gone up. i would like to ask the americans out there, if you're a family of four, do you feel like you're getting 3200 dollars more as a family than you were four years ago in this country? do you feel better off? most would say, no way. spending is out of control. it is going to hurt. i used to state future generations, but it -- it is going to hurt the current generation. we are on a path to financial disaster if we don't at the

bull by the horns right now. we trying very, very hard to drive this president in a direction that is responsible to spend as we go and not spend more than we take in and start paying down this mammoth president -- the senate, it is 1401 days as the senate has passed a budget. that is irresponsible. we have to hold their feet to the fire to make sure we get on track again. all we're doing by staying on this trajectory is we're stalling the inevitable. it is going to be more painful than we are talking about now, so much more if we don't take the bull by the horns right now and get our financial house in order. maybe as soon as four or five years from now if we continue, it could be cataclysmic cuts.

it can be replicated in this country. we have got to do things now. right now, this sequester at the end of the day between now and september -- you have the number $85 billion. it's actually only $44 billion. it is because of the prorated amount of what is left from now until september. projected out, i would also like to say that right now, we are spending about 22% of gdp. if the sequester goes through for the entire decade, which is what the grand bargain in tailed, if it goes through for the entire 10 years, -- right now, we're spending 22% of gdp.

we will be spending 23% even with this -- the sequester going into play. host: is it a strategy to say the sequester is all right? guest: it is not the best way to manage a process. i do believe, pay me now or pay me a lot more later. i would rather take the bull by the horns right now. if this is the only way to try to get some cuts, then i say we ought -- we have to do what we have today. no, it is not the best way to manage. i think we could go in and target cuts. i think the best way to manage would be to actually bring the 800 pound gorilla into the room and do something as possible of. both of those programs -- the major programs, the third rail programs we talked about, medicare and social security --

especially medicare are on the path to disaster. we are going to leave a lot of people holding an empty bag in a few years if we don't a double by the horns right now. i think the most results looking for us to do is to get into some serious so the most responsible thing to do is to get into entitlement reform because we could erase all discretionary spending and still have a deficit of close to half of $1 trillion. host: in the arizona -- "arizona republic" -- "cuts will hurt arizona schools." guest: i am one to believe we should not be spending -- sending tax dollars to washington for education in the first place here that i have far more trust -- place. i have far more trust in local

school boards to make the decisions for how their children and constituents' children are going to be educated and having a one-size- fits-all approach coming out of the department of education. show me where in the constitution it gives the federal government the purview of regulating education policy in this country. host: matt salmon is our guest. the first call comes from his district. arizona. michael. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressman salmon, if the sequestration is supposed to be so tough, 2%, or 3%, i guess homeland security is saying we should start early because we had 300 he legal immigrants released -- illegal immigrants released here in arizona.

earlier i saw a resignation over that immigrant release, and that washington had nothing to do with that release. who is running washington? is it janet napolitano's fault that the 300 were released? guest: that is a great question. whether it is dealing with fast and furious, or libya, president obama is always trying to pass -- blame somebody else. when he first took office, on the fiscal issues it was blame president bush. within his own administration he does not take ownership of anything. somebody in his administration and we have to suspect that was the secretary of homeland security, janet a. napolitano,

must have directed the release, the only thing i could think of is he is trying to to get an early head start on his amnesty proposal or he is trying to play games with this sequestration to try to send a message that we cannot even cut a dime here in washington, dc. i am sick and tired of the spin coming out of this gentleman. i wish that he would lead. could you imagine president reagan having to deal with cuts would have gone through and actually made cuts to major programs that hurt people's lives? this is unconscionable and it does not have to happen. host: tyrone in mcallister, oklahoma. democrats line. caller: i am in a small town. we have an army base, and i

listen to this and people say there is nothing to the sequester, but we have an ammunition plant out here, and i know they have temporary help and part-time help, and they are laying them off. my son has been working there for years, and he is fixing to get 22 days off, for load -- for low -- for load. i know people are getting take- home pay that is less. host: tyrone, would you like to see the sequester issue solved and how? caller: what i would like to see is the bickering stop. everybody quit blaming everybody. what it will take is they have to pass something and send it to the president. if he vetoes it, blame him.

guest: last year, the house passed to measures to avert sequestration, two targeted plans that would go in and make cuts in a strategic way and avoid these kinds of issues that you brought up. i do not believe that the sequestration is not a big deal. it is a important issue and something we have to focus our attention on, however both of those bills passed last year passed by the house were stuck in the drawer by senator harry reid. america needs to focus on harry reid and ask him why it has been 1400 days since the senate has passed a budget. they are not doing their job. why he is not allowing responsible legislation for all boarding -- averting these problems -- harry reid is a

problem, and i have to believe he and the president are in cahoots. host: this tweet. representative matt salmon is an anarchist, a reactionary, advocating shutdown of government. it is his job to govern, not shut it down. guest: i believe i am a realist, trying do everything we can to avoid major financial disaster that will hurt every family and taxpayer in america in the not so distant future if we do not get our fiscal house in order. last year, out of every dollar we spend, $.43 was borrowed money. we are borrowing $4 billion a day. $4 billion a day. can your family sustained on that kind of spending pattern? any hospital, church, business,

any entity that can spend so recklessly and borrow their way out of these problems can avoid financial disaster? the american government cannot either. if it is being an anarchist to get our financial patterns under control in spending as we go, i would take umbrage with the gentleman on what the definition of an anarchist is. host: jamie tweeps in, if the sequester goes through and the economy is damaged, we can blame obama for that. obsesses -- obsessed are compel her tweets in the sequester is manufactured by congress, congress can and should repeal it. guest: i think the blame game is useless, but bob woodward, who is probably not a republican, has called obama

out, saying he owns the sequester. it generates -- it was his hammer. the grand bargain the supercommittee was supposed to come up with never the carrier last. so, the sequester that obama demanded in the congress passed through came into effect. now he is having buyers remorse. mr. president, you do not like it, lead. come up with alternatives. maybe, finally, as a responsible adult, deal with the entitlement issue so that we do not have a crisis when you leave office. maybe it will not happen until you leave office, mr. president , but it will happen in history will remember you were the president that drove us to that. host: "the hill" newspaper reported about a gop house

meeting talking about the budget coming up in mid rise -- mid- march. what are your thoughts about that and when can we expect to see the budget process on the floor? guest: the budget process is starting to unfold as we speak. the budget committee is working hard on it. i have been in meetings with paul ryan and he has delineated that we will be passing a 10- year balanced-budget and it will impose the sequester numbers, $85 billion this year, and we are hopeful that the senate will finally, after four years, do their job and pass a budget as well and we can get on with the process as we should. i believe that budget will, i'll -- come out sometime in the next few weeks, the next two or

three weeks. it will be a budget that balances within 10 years, which i think is incredibly as possible. i would like to -- responsible. i would like to see it faster, but 10 years is a good start. host: the head of the progressive caucus was quoted in "the new york times" saying the sequester is good in the sense that defense will be cut. guest: that is his perspective, but if we give the department of defense the tools and the ability to cut programs they do not see value in -- the other thing is i think the dod or. process needs a complete -- dod procurement process needs a complete looking at. there is a little bit of the

good old boy syndrome that still exists. i would like to see positive changes. i am concerned about defense cuts probably more so than anything we are looking at right now and defense takes a disproportionate share of those cuts. most agencies are right around 8%, and defense is that 13%. i would like to give them the tools at the pentagon to manage through this and make sure that readiness does not suffer. host: we are talking with representative matt salmon, republican from arizona. larry, rutledge, georgia, you are on the air. independent line. caller: i think they should get bob woodward and a are -- ar-16. the marsupial press cannot seem

to get the president back in their pouch. maybe we could cut the program for the cloning of joe biden because we do not need stupid and stereo. thank you, sir. host: that was larry in georgia. this is the white house's take on the sequester in arizona -- $18 million lost in primary and secondary education. guest: i think if the president spent even one-third more time

leading, we would probably be able to do the job that needs to be done as far as targeting specific cuts like four point $5 billion on him proper food stamp payments, or an unused airport and -- in oklahoma, $340,000 for robust squirrels. i could go on and on about the ridiculous spending. if the president would work with us and talk to harry reid in the senate and say get a budget passed and do your job like the american people are paying you to do, and work with the republicans. stop sticking these bills in your drawer. anytime the republican house passes something to avert the sequester crisis in east take it in your drawer, you are part of the problem, not the

solution. host: this tweet. the republicans passed it we will build, but they were one- sided. work with the senate and pass something that will pass? guest: why did the senate not take our bill and amend them? they did not let them see the light of day. there is a process where if they do not like what they see, they can take the bills to committee , mark them up, amend them, and send them back to us. that would be the responsible thing, but senator harry reid would not even do that. host: the next call for congressman salmon comes from lee and thomasville, georgia -- in thomasville, georgia. caller: good morning, peter. thank you for taking my call. matt salmon, have you ever heard of the treasury department debt

to the penny chart that they run deadly -- daily? they keep a daily report that goes back to 1993, and if you follow it all the way through, we have been going in debt every year, and january 4, 2007, when the democrats took control of the house and the senate, our national debt was $8 trillion and some change. all of that is change to anyone in washington, dc, anymore. we should have someone in this country to investigate that and make sure their figures are right, and any time people lie to you and say we have a balanced budget, kick them off the air.

guest: i appreciate your comments. you are very astute. the debt has doubled in the last few years since nancy pelosi and harry reid were in charge. it is unconscionable. right now, we are spending our way and borrowing our way into oblivion, and what happens when our creditors, those that are loaning america all of this debt, what happens when they call their notes and say they are not going to loan any more money? i guess we could go to the treasury department and say go ahead and print more money. then what happens? we have hyperinflation and a loaf of bread goes up to $10 a loaf. how responsible is it to keep aching the can down the road? i do not believe it is. i did not come back here to the part of the same, old problem.

i came back here to make major change. i had my fifth grandchild. number six will be here in april. how morally responsible is it for us to keep our owing and borrowing -- borrowing and borrowing? every american owes over $50,000 if we were to pay off the debt. what will it be five years from now? can america, any organization, sustain that kind of borrowing, lending -- spending and government growth? host: sabrina tweets in, if congress spent even one thirds the time spending vacations, -- taking vacate this -- vacations, i think all of this would be done.

guest: my schedule is six days a week, about 14 hours a day, and i hardly ever see my wife anymore. the fact is i am working very hard and i take offense to the notion that they are buying into the spin coming out of this place. we are not going on vacation. we are working very, very hard. host: do you think the house and the senate should be in session more than they are? guest: yes, i do. part of a congressman's responsibility is to meet with their constituents, so when they say we are on vacation, we are back in the district, meeting with constituents about their own personal issues, with the social security administration, the veterans administration, adoption, immigration -- whatever problems they might be having.

we have two jobs. one is here to vote, and the other is to be their personal advocate with the government when the government is not so nice to them. do i believe right now we should be in session more? i do. i believe we should be doing everything we possibly can to cut spending and get on the pathway to financial responsibility because every american is counting on us doing our job and every american will be hurt if we are not successful. host: m, wyoming, michigan, democrat. you are the last caller for representative salmon. caller: please cope with me. i am a nervous first-time caller. i want to ask representative salmon, is that the parent a

leader in the family? host: where are you going in this? caller: we are willing to cut everybody's expenses but our own. i have worked 30 years, and i do not have a pension. they worked 12 years, they have a pension, insurance and anything they want. i have to cut my own first. start to be a leader, lead by example. all of these people just talk and talk over and over and nothing is done. i will take one shot for this country. i will do this first for this country. i love this country. this is my adopted mother. all i hear is everyone say how much they love the country, but nobody puts anything toward the country. guest: i think the gentleman has a point. congress needs to lead by

example. we need to leave by example and look at our pension systems and bring them more in line with where america is right now, and move them away from the current pension system to a more defined benefit program like a 401(k). for all federal workers, so they have to live like every other american has to live. i also support the no budget, no pay. i also would go one step further and i believe if we cannot pass a balanced budget members of congress should have their pay cut by 20%. the stock act, i think no member of congress should be able to enrich themselves based on the job they have because of inside information we get on certain projects. the stock act that was passed last year was a joke. at the end of the day we should

make it so no member of congress can buy and trade stocks, that they should only do it through a blind trust and not be able to enrich themselves. there are all whole other host of reforms we should do leading by example, so the gentleman has a point. let's lead by example. americans have had to cut and do more with less. we should cut him do more with less in the congress and the federal government. host: representative matt salmon is in his first return term after serving three terms earlier. thank you for being on "washington journal." opnext, representative adam smith, democrat of washington will talk about this as well after this news update. ask the obama administration will provide the syrian opposition with additional

assistance and nonlethal aid but food and medical supplies. secretary of state john kerry announced these developments today at an international conference on syria that is taking place in rome. there are important economic indicators due out this morning. the labor department will release weekly jobless claims. the commerce department reports on the gross domestic product and freddie mac will release weekly mortgage rates. the senate has confirmed jack lew to be treasury secretary, replacing timothy geithner. he had most recently served as president obama's chief of staff and white house budget director. first lady michelle obama is trying to get schools to come up with more creative ways to motivate schools to exercise. she will be in chicago to announce the latest part of her campaign known as let's move where came -- teachers will

encourage exercise into blessing -- lesson plans like memorizing multiplication tables while doing jumping jacks. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> i think eisenhower handled crisis so well. he was a very decisive man. people think of him as a grandfatherly, pleasant man with a winning smile and the rest, but behind that smile were some very i see -- icy blue eyes, and he made decisions that do not have the liability that some decisions have when they are made emotionally. he never made an emotional decision. he was an emotional man but

never allowed his emotions to control him when big decisions had to be made. >> richard nixon reflects on his vice presidency with dwight eisenhower part of "oral histories" on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are pleased to have with us adam smith, democrat of washington. give us your general thoughts on where we stand one day before the sequester takes effect? guest: we are not in a good place. it will kick in tomorrow, and we will spend march figuring out where to go from here. it is a significant challenge. there is no way to plan for it and efficiently govern. we need to get the deficit out of control -- under control, but

this is far from the best way to do it here at it will impact -- do it. it will have an impact on education,, housing and national defense. the pentagon has to scramble. it will be a big challenge. we will come back in the next couple of weeks and have longer number stations about how to get a more sensible plan in place that gets our deficit under control. host: what will happen in your district? do you seek immediate effect? guest: it is really playing out over series of months. there are furlough announcements that have gone out, but it is over the course of the next couple of months that those will begin to kick in. nobody is really sure what will happen. there will be a furor -- fewer employees in the department of defense, and tsa.

there will be cuts and they will have an impact. host: "the wall street journal" has been running editorials on this issue, and a couple of days ago "the un-scary sequester" was the headline. yesterday they said even with the sequester we will spend more money this year than we did last year. guest: that is not true. we will be spending more money in the federal government, there is a difference between the discretionary portion of the budget and the mandatory portion. mandatory is social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance. that he continues to go up significantly as healthcare accelerate, as more people retire. that clearly goes up. the discretionary portion of the budget, defense will spend a lot

less money than they did last year. that portion of the budget, which is about 38%, is going to be caught and will go down and that is what the sequester applies to. host: in the senate, the senate is voting on a republican plan to give the president more flexibility in how to cut this money. what you think about that plan? guest: the plan is to keep the sequester number in how much has to be cut, but give the administration flexibility on where to cut. you have to cut close to everything by the same amount. there is a little bit of flexibility. that is certainly better than doing it across-the-board in a, sort of, mindless way that has been set up. my concern is the discretionary

portion of the budget is bearing the entire burden. i listened a little bit to representative salmon, who came before and he talked about getting this -- spending under control, and that is part of it , but the mandatory part is what we need to find savings. we have cut taxes in the last 15 years by roughly $7 trillion and/or revenue is less than 15% of gdp. when we were running a surplus, it was 21% of gdp. we have cut every conceivable tax in the last 15 years and that has hurt us on the revenue side. i admit spending has gone up dramatically and we to get that under control, but we cannot get responsibility fiscally without more revenue. host: you talked about getting mandatory reforms. guest: cutting it.

host: does that include social security and medicare? guest: it certainly includes medicare. social security is a dedicated fund. there are ways to deal with social security without having to make reductions in the program. it is roughly 12% of the budget. it is relatively small. it is really the healthcare portion of spending that is going up dramatically, medicare , medicaid, health care -- that is the portion of mandatory spending that is going up and where cost need to be brought under control. host: when it comes to military spending, what concerns you the most and when will we those potential cuts? guest: first of all, we could save money in the defense budget. as part of the president's plan

two years ago, they cut 487 billion dollars from the defense budget over the course of 10 years. they cut the amount of money we expected to spend. we are still spending more money, so when they say it is a 487 alien dollar cut, that is a cut from what we were projected to spend. that still has an impact. i still think we can get more than $487 billion. i introduced a bill that would have cut defense by another hundred $67 billion. at one of the biggest impacts of sequester is the military calls readiness, a sickly training. -- basically training. a lot of the money is spent to train our troops to do the missions we have told them that they need to be ready to do. sometimes they happen, sometimes they do not. if you say that dod needs to be ready if north korea launches a

war against south korea, we cannot just wake up and say go figure it out. we have to train for it, which means flying hours, the cost of having ships in training missions, ammunition. a lot of that is cut to deal with the sequester because there is less flying hours, less time to train, which means our troops will be less ready to perform these missions if they are asked to go do them. that has a significant impact on national security. host: bob woodward of "the washington post" is getting a lot of attention for interactions with the white house but on wednesday he was " talkings "morning joe about the use of an aircraft carrier to make a point. [video clip]>> can you imagine

ronald reagan saying i cannot do this because of a budget document or george w. bush saying i cannot invade iraq because i cannot get the aircraft carriers i need, or even bill clinton saying i am not going to attack saddam hussein's intelligence headquarters because of some budget document under the constitution? the president is commander-in- chief and employs the force. we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement -- i cannot do what i need to do to protect the country? that is kind of a madness that i have not seen in a long time. host: representative smith? guest: i guess bob woodward has a different understanding of how money works and the rest of us. if you do not have the money,

you have to adjust. that is a nice sentiment that ronald reagan would have had money appear out of thin air and pay for things, but to send out an aircraft carrier cost a certain amount of money. as part of the strategy of here are the resources we have available and what we should do, the commander-in-chief has to make decisions about where to send -- spend the money. some of the money is able to be spent on the training that i mentioned so that the next group of troops that we send to afghanistan are ready to do what we are sending them to do and by ready i am talking about lives here. if you are not properly trained, used to the equipment, used to working together, people die. saving money by not sending an aircraft carrier is a prudent

choice. i found what bob woodward said to be in say. it is not a piece of paper. it is $45 billion you have to find. it is money. these are choices they need to be made. it is symptomatic of a larger problem as we try to confront the budget. everybody wants to confront the deficit, but say we do not have to cut fat or raise that tax. we do. there are going to be consequences. i am ok with that. i do not think we should spend $1 trillion less. we should have a glidepath toward a reduced budget, a whatever you do it will have a real impact on a variety of programs. acknowledge that and victor choice. do not wish it away and say if we have a strong leader we would imaginary -- heaven imaginary aircraft carrier.

that is not the way the world works. host: representative adam smith , top ranking member of the armed services committee, currently in his ninth term in congress representing the area around seattle, washington, where he served as a prosecutor at one point in his career. your turn to talk with representative smith. charles, national, public in line. -- nashville, republican line. caller: what bob woodward said was easy. all those other presidents did was raid social security. i have heard both sides mentioned the elephant in the room. to me the elephant in the room is tax breaks given to places like bank of america who take all their money to the cayman islands. i have listened to c-span for the last 20 years, and i have gathered that you have taken 2%

of my money, but my gasoline is $3.60 a gallon. it cannot go up more. take some money from them. bank of america did not pay anything in texas. we're giving them $1.9 billion of our money. you will raid the social security trust fund again, i will pay it back again, and you will not fix anything. that is not a blemish for the republicans or the democrats. stopped selling out america. guest: revenue has to be part of the equation and corporate taxes are part of the problem. a lot of corporations complained about having the second highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35%, but they never mention what the effective rate is, how much we actually collect after all the deductions and write-offs and

ways to hide income. we collect 12%, which is the second lowest rate in the developed world, so closing those loopholes and getting a more sensible corporate tax structure, but a tax structure that raises more money -- that is part that people skip. we need a tax system that works where people pay their fair share. host: the house made hr one, tax reform. have you heard anything about tax reform? guest: we are having that conversation, but i want to emphasize that when you talk about tax reform, that makes it sound better. people imagine that that means their taxes are going down. the democrats have been focused

on tax cuts that have gone to people at the top, 1%, 2%. 80% of bush's tax cuts went to people making less than $250,000. a lot of those write-offs that we like to deride those to us. education tax credits, per child tax credits, the elimination of the so-called marriage penalty much merck a lot of those tax cuts into a wide swath of americans. -- penalties -- a lot of those tax cuts went to a wide swath of americans. we are all kind of in this pool together, and at the end of the day, facing a $1 trillion a year deficit, it's tax reform does not raise more revenue, if the end result is not that some group of people is paying more in taxes than it is not really

going to be helpful in terms of the deficit. we could have a more sensible tax code, but it had better bring in more money if we are going to realistically deal with our deficit. host: the next call comes from christie and hope, michigan -- in hope, michigan, democrat. caller: good morning. i'm going to give my opinion on something. or our three kinds of lies. there is a lie, but damn lie, and then there is statistics. this sequester is going to absolutely hurt the people of the united states, and i am talking about the people that actually pay taxes. it will not hurt the people who have taken their money and put it overseas in their banks. those people are not citizens of the united states. they are traitors. the traitors of this country are also the people from wall

street who were never made to pay for what they did to this country. if we could have that money back and have those people that are putting their money in banks overseas -- they are not citizens of this country, and mr. smith, i would like to see why for your -- thank you for your courage and representation of our countries protection, which is what you are doing. those people who are putting money overseas are not citizens. host: we got the point, risky. let's get a response from representative smith. guest: the big point she made is that this will have an impact on people. you have seen a lot of stories that it will not make a difference. it is cutting $88 million out of the budget over the course of the next seven months. people will be laid off. government services will be more slowly delivered.

it will have that impact. while i freely admit we have to get the deficit under control, this is a very poor way to do it and the discretionary budget has already been cut. it will impact national security and a lot of other areas. there is a smarter way to budget and i hope we come together and make a more comprehensive decision that includes revenue, reductions in mandatory spending, getting this on a path to better physical health. host: bill tweeps in, i have a feeling president obama and his host of leaders will cut vital services to cut -- make a political point. guest: i do not agree with that. vital services run on money. if you have less money, you have to make those choices. they are trying to make the best choices that they can, but if you have to cut $88 billion out

of a budget decision that includes revenue, reductions in mandatory spending, getting this on a path to better physical health. host: bill, it will have an impact on people. we will try to minimize the impact as much as possible, and certainly the government can run more efficiently, but at this point you will have an impact on what is available to people had host: represented smith -- people. host: represented smith, you have been here for 16 years here and how have things -- he here. how have things changed? guest: what has changed is we are under significantly more budget pressure for a variety of different reasons. when i first was running for congress, the deficit was a big issue. it seems quaint now when you think about what it was in the early 1990's, but we came in and had a balanced budget.

for four years, we had a surplus. then we decided we would give it away. we had tax cuts, spending increases, 9/11 happened, we had to respond, 2008 happen, we had to respond, and we dug ourselves a financial hole. that means we cannot keep doing what people have gotten accustomed to us doing. it is difficult to take those things back. the paralysis we have is faith country, not the congress -- is as a country, not the congress. there is a consensus that we are spending too much money. if you ask the question, the answer is yes, we are spending too much and we should reduce it, but when they are asked here are the areas that we should cut, keep the same or increase.

in no area was there a plurality of people for cutting. except for foreign aid, which was basically 50/50, and every single area, two thirds or more of the people said keep it the same or increase it. we are concerned about government spending, but we just do not want to cut it from anywhere. that is what we as politicians have an obligation to have an honest discussion. we have to talk about the programs we need to be deuce. yes, we will get more efficient -- reduce. yes, we will get more efficient, but there is no way to wipe out a $1 trillion deficit with efficiency. you will have to raise taxes. part of the reason i am in favor of raising taxes is i am not in favor of making the dramatic cuts in programs that would be necessary like medicare and

defense if you do not raise taxes and it would be disingenuous to pound the table about how we are cutting and then not raise the revenue. the deficit is terrible, but we cannot raise taxes. we have to move past that. we have to make the tough choices necessary to deal with the budget and -- budget. host: donna, texas. caller: representative smith, how can you as a member of congress talk about cuts to social security and medicare? that's cut congress. let's cut their pay. you are exempt from health care. what is that about? guest: we are not exempt from

the health-care law. i am on the federal employee health care plan, and i pay about $600 a month for the health-care coverage that i get, and congress is not only not exempt, we are the one and only group of employees that are mandated to move to the exchanges once we get to 2014. look, i do not have a problem with cutting congress. our budget is part of sequestration. my budget, my office is cut by $180,000 a year as a result of the. congress is 535 people and they will take their lumps. you will not get back there fiscal -- to fiscal responsibility, to saving over $1 trillion a year, by just cutting congress. i am all for it, but collectively as a nation we need to take responsibility and make choices about what taxes we

want to go up, and what programs we want to cut. i do not support cutting social security, by the way, but those are choices we are going to have to make. to say we're going to cut back all congress, we all have to participate in the conversation. host: tiger modern tweets and. woodward's point is that it is not just a budget document, but that the administration chooses benching a cvn rather than making wiser cuts. guest: what would the wiser cuts be? tell us what it is. just to say there was a smarter way to do that and not know makes it clear that you do not know whether there was a smarter way to do it. it is quite possible there was, but i'm a little familiar with a

way the defense budget works, and there are tough choices all over. the primary choice here, how much ammunition, how much flying hours you get to a marine unit that is getting ready to deploy to afghanistan to make sure they are ready. believe me, the pentagon has been preparing, making reductions, cutting corners. if you want to say there is a better way, i am all years to the specifics, but just blindly saying make a smarter choice really does not help. the president does not get to make these decisions in the theoretical. he has to make the decisions that are implemented. host: representative smith got his law degree at the university of washington and served as a prosecutor for the city of seattle. jim in enterprise, alabama. republican line. caller: thank you.

i have a couple of questions. number one, on the sequester, how much are your democrats planning on cutting out of the military budget? number two, it seems as though the president has been flip- flopping on this. when it first came out, he said it was devastating, it will kill everything in this country. now he said unless you work on a military base, you probably will not see any difference. which one of these statements is a lie? guest: actually, the president made neither of those statements. he has consistently said it will have a sizable impact that will negatively affect the country and the economy. number two, he has not now said it was only affect the military. his cabinet has been out talking

about the variety of impacts it will have a bunch of different places. -- it will have in a bunch of different places. i did not vote for the budget control act, but a lot of democrats did, a lot of republicans did, and the president signed it. they all signed it thinking it would not happen. the amount of money cut in defense was put in that law, and the amount was going to be $109 billion total, of which $54 billion was going to be defense. we bought two months, so now we're down to $44 billion this year and if we do not do anything by the end of this year it will be roughly the same amount next year. that is not democrats or republicans making that choice. that is the law. host: this tweet.

representative, close some of the 750 bases overseas maybe? guest: we are closing some of them. 750 bases is an overstatement. many of those "bases those quote are one room with -- bases" are one room with six or seven people working in it. our overseas presence has shrunk since the cold war, but our foreign presence is a big part of what our military does. this is a helpful debate we should have as a country. does our ability to project power continue to be critically important to our national security? our overseas presence, that is what it does. we are the guarantors of south korean and japanese security. we have 20,000 troops in south

korea. we have aircraft carrier battle groups out there, stations and training on the mission that if north korea were to decide to do something, we would be there to help south korea or japan. that cost a lot of money. if we want to decide that we will not do that anymore, present a deterrent to north korean aggression, that is a choice we can make, but there are implications. do not think we bring them home and nothing happens. i mentioned here and. -- durand. our presence is an -- a deterrent. if the deterrent goes down, if we bring ourselves home from the variety of places we are, that reduces the deterrent to these bad actors from doing things that are contrary to our interests. that is balancing choice.

there are some people that are very smart who have written great articles saying we do not need this. it is a discussion we should have, but do not think that those bases have people sitting there playing tiddlywinks all day. they are there for a purpose. we have a specific national security strategy and a long list of requirements. if we change that, make a choice about what we are not going to do. host: chuck hagel -- what is your opinion? guest: i think he is clearly qualified. he has the background in defense. i would be foolish to say his confirmation process went well. he will have to do better than that in terms of building the relationships necessary in the house and the senate because credibility manages -- matters

an enormous amount. he will be very dependent on the staff at the pentagon to implement whatever policy he wants. he will need their faith and confidence. he will have to work to earn that in the same thing in the house and the senate. secretary leon panetta and secretary robert gates, they had an enormous amount of credibility in the pentagon and in the congress. in tough times and tough decisions, that enabled them to be very effective. secretary chuck hagel will have to work at that hard it does not come automatically. host: what is your relationship with the chair of the armed services committee, buck mckeon? guest: it is outstanding. we have a long tradition of the chair and the ranking majority and minority working closely

together. our joint staffs -- the only committee in congress that does that -- we are committed to working together in a bipartisan fashion and to passing the defense authorization bill which we have done for 51 years. even the appropriations committee did not get anything done last year. we did. we have members that are committed to bipartisanship and getting our bill done. we do it the old-fashioned way, going through subcommittee, full committee, house, senate, conference committee and we pass legislation. the leadership is not come in and say your is your bill, please pass it. we worked the progress -- process. host: finally, us policy in syria, and final and -- possibly in mali.

guest: we are stepping up efforts to find people in serious we can support. president assad has to go. it is confusing as to who will replace him. caution was wise. diving into a military conflict we do not understand could cost lives. when there were problems in lebanon we lost 241 marines. or, somalia, in 1992. it is inappropriate -- it has been appropriate. in mali, we successfully dealt with somalia because we worked with uganda, building a port and it was primarily locally driven. it was working with the local

population. we will have to do the same thing with mali and algeria, chad -- it is a real threat. if all candidates comfortable hanging out in mali, it could be the next afghanistan, pakistan, where they could carry out attacks. host: are you satisfied with the french taking the lead at this point and with the level the us is offering? guest: yes, i am satisfied with the french taking the lead. we are not offering as much support as we need to, but that is because we have to build the relationships and the capacity. we were concerned about what was going on there three or four years ago, as al qaeda has been active there as a offshoot from

algeria, but we were in iraq, afghanistan, gearing up in yemen and somalia, so we do not have the assets there. as we have drawn out of iraq and freeing up in afghanistan, we are freeing up some assets. host: we have been talking with representative adam smith, democrat of washington, ranking member on the armed services committee. representative smith, please come back. guest: anytime. thank you very much. host: the house is coming in at 9:00 a.m. this morning, and they are working on the violence against women act that was passed by the senate a couple of weeks ago. that is what the house is working on today. the senate, when they come into session today, they will be working on sequestration bills. there is a democratic bill and a republican bill and as ed o'keefe told us at the beginning

of the show, he does not expect to see them pass, but the debate in about the sequestration. the house is about to open the door and come into session. thank you for being with us. one of the reminder, if you go to booktv.org, which is c-span 2, we have posted right there at the top, bob woodward talking about his book "price of politics" to us got a lot of attention over the sequestration issues. go online to watch bob woodward talking about his book. thank you for being with us.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., february 28, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable ileana ros-lehtinen to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, to whom we see what we could be and what we can become, thank you for giving us another day. in these days, our nation is faced with pressing issues while we honor the memory of many who acted courageously a half century ago to bring

greater freedoms to all americans. grant wisdom, knowledge and understanding to us all as well as an extra measure of charity. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house who labor within these halls under public scrutiny. give them peace and an abundance of prudence in the work they do. and may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from georgia, mr. barrow. mr. barrow: members and guests, please join me. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, at midnight tonight the department of defense and other government agencies will fall victim to the president's sequester. every american family will be affected by the shifting of funds. in south carolina's second congressional district, the army base at fort jackson and columbia is expected to lose $75 million. the savannah river site will be forced to furlough hardworking employees, install critical -- and stall critical missions due to a possible $200 million cuts. both of these cuts will endanger our national security. the president and the senate

have refused to negotiate until a possible solution until today. house republicans have voted twice to avoid sequestration. our nation has a spending problem, and we must address these issues before it is too late and our debt spirals out of control. the president should change course and begin working with both houses of congress to tackle the national debt which threatens american families. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. barrow: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, in a few hours the so-called sequester will begin to take effect, and the things we cannot do without will be cut just as the same as the things we don't need and can't afford. what got us to this point was the failure to compromise. what kept us from solving that problem is the same failure to compromise. only in washington can so many

folks agree on what the problem is, yet no solution is brought to the table. my home state of georgia is home to one of the vital installations, including fort gordon, our central nervous system of our national defense. nearly $1 billion will spread across these installations and will have devastating impacts on the surrounding communities. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to come back to the table, find the spending cuts to avoid this disaster and put these partisan games behind us. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, in 2011 i voted against the budget control act and president obama 's sequester, because i believe in fear they posed a grave threat to national security.

mr. brooks: that fear has come true. as i stand here today, north alabamians face job furloughs in the thousands because washington would rather spend money on privileged programs than protect national security. mr. speaker, i voted against sequestration at every opportunity. i sent a letter to the white house calling on the president to face and avoid the horrendous consequences of his sequester. i've escorted members of the house armed services committee arged reginald arsenal to help them better understand how our civilian defense workers are critical to america's security, and i have repeatedly co-sponsored legislation to end the sequester. for nearly two years i have been fighting sequestration and the hallowing out of our armed forces. it's time for the president and the senate to do the same. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: to address the

house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: many of my constituents asked the question -- what work are we doing for them? i'm very glad for them this morning we will finally end the journey for the violence against women act and finally vote on a recognized compromise that the senate has proposed. but i also say i am not here to talk about process and blame when it comes to this pending sequester which most americans do not understand. but i'm ready to work, and i believe we should stay at work. we should follow the senate plan that follows the buffett rule and provides for modest reductions in defense and does not provide for these devastating cuts until 2014. we can get this done, but we cannot have any compromise when one side refuses to acknowledge that it takes revenue to run this government to be able to ensure that people have the resources that they need when

there's a natural disaster or that our military has the resources that they need or, for example, in texas, my colleague who refuted the idea that i stand for children, where we're losing some 4,000 spots in head start. we can do something, madam speaker. we need to simply stay and work and follow the senate's plan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: madam speaker, i rise today to ask the house to lead and turn away from mayan politics. the water's going to end. this strategy over the president's automatic cuts borders on untruthful. for example, the f.a.a. released a list of 200 regional

airportes that could potentially close due to the president's cuts, saying at least 100 of them would be closed. how account f.a.a., this 200 airports, and then admits that only 100 of them will close? it's mayan politics. 200 affected airports puts more fear in people than 100 regional airports. even with tomorrow's spending cuts, f.a.a. operations and facilities will have $500 million more than 2008 levels, and air traffic is lower. more money, less traffic and dramatic cuts. my seventh grader would say that's fuzzy math, dad, and it's true. he's right. the truth will prevail. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. >> as a member of the veterans' affairs committee and as american and as a proud representative of ventura county, we are home to a large naval base with a very significant veteran community. ms. brownley: i am extremely concerned about the impact the sequester will have on our women and men and their families who have courageously served, sacrificed and defended our country. if congress fails to stop the across-the-board and unnecessary cuts at this moment, so many programs that help veterans, like transitioning to civilian life and finding employment, will be reduced. more veterans with less resources is unacceptable. our brave men and women deserve better. now is the time to be doing more and not less.

for our veterans' sake, we need to come together to stop this sequester time. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. 52,653, a lot of numbers have been associated with our skyrocketing debt and government overspending but 52,653 is a particularly striking one and should give everyone pause as the specter of an unwanted sequester looms over the federal budget this week. mr. hultgren: it's the amount that each american man, woman and child owes to pay off the country $16.6 trillion debt. clearly overspending by the federal government has saddled us and our children with unsustainable debt, and just as clearly, any alternative must include reduction in spending. i'm not looking for winners and losers in d.c. i want the american people to

win when we make the cuts that need to be made. controlling spending is a necessity. targeting spending cuts, such as the house twice proposed and passed, is vital to the sequestration solution. there is nothing worse than passing on a legacy to our children of a lower standard of living. madam speaker, we can and must deal with this issue of debt and overspending so our children will not have to face $52,653. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. while congress is dealing with this manufactured sequester crisis, we have a real climate crisis occurring right outside the window. there is clarity on what should be a bipartisan issue with the public. seven out of 10 americans believe that scientists that climate change is happening and that humans are making it worse. every day americans see the impact with record droughts, extreme storm events.

2012 set more than 3,500 monthly records for extreme heat, rain and snow. this week 38 leading republican and national security advisors urged international action to prevent and mitigate the impact of climate change. the letter highlights the importance of immediate action and expresses national security concerns should we fail to address these issues. we should be addressing the real climate crisis instead of dealing with phony, madeup fiscal crisis. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter this letter in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? ms. delbene: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delbene: i rise to honor

andrew, serving as chair of the washington state chapter, a local leader known for his intelligence, humor and dedication and andrew was also a friend. over the course of his life, andrew was a strong advocate for the protection of our wild lands and rivers, natural resources that make the pacific northwest such a special place. as an avid rafter, andrew had a great love for the rivers of washington state. his early advocacy work laid the groundwork to protect the middle forks and prat rivers and expand alpine lakes wilderness, a bill i'm proud to co-sponsor. i was fortunate to get to know him when we served on the board of our children's school, and here i saw his passion and love for his community and his family. andrew was a man that was large in stature, voice and heart. my thoughts and prayers go to his wife, mica, son, peter, and his entire family. he will be missed by all of us who were fortunate to know him.

thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 83, i call up senate 47 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 47, an act to re-authorize the violence against women act of 1994. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 83, the bill is considered as read. after one hour debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees, it shall be in order to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 113-2, if offered by the majority leader or his designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. pelosi, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s. 47 under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: today as we consider the violence against women act, aid like to start by thanking our majority leader, eric cantor, and many republicans in the house for their time and commitment to this important issue. the violence against women act first passed on the floor of this very house nearly two decades ago. and it has long enjoyed bipartisan support. years later after two

re-authorizations, a pivotal supreme court case, and a nationwide expansion of laws condemning violence against women, republicans are committed to protecting victims of violence and putting offenders behind bars. that's why we are bringing it to the floor today. it's important to protect all women against acts of domestic violence and other haven't crimes, and ensure that he resources go directly to the victims. because that is what this bill is really about. it's about people. it's time to remember why this bill passed nearly two decades ago. protecting women was our first priority then and it should be our first priority now. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. pelosi: i thank the speaker. madam speaker, when congress enacted the original violence against women act nearly two decades ago, we sent a very clear and immediate message to the american people, no, and i emphasize, no woman would ever be forced to suffer in silence in the face of abuse. no one would ever be forced to fear for their lives or the safety in their own homes because of necessaryic violence. -- domestic violence. that promise formed the foundation of our work then and it has served as a cornerstone of our efforts in the years since to authorize and strengthen this landmark law. even as the times have changed, our commitments have remained the same and strong. over the years we have always sought out ways to improve this legislation. today on the floor of the house we will have a very clear choice. we have a choice to support the

bipartisan legislation that has passed in the united states senate. it passed with a 78-22, 77% of the senate voted for this legislation. the majority of the republicans in the senate supported this legislation. all of the women in the senate, democrats and republicans alike, support the bipartisan legislation that i hope we will have an opportunity to vote on today on the floor of the house. in contrast we have the house republican proposal which, while described in so lovely terms, are a step backward for the women of america and those who suffer domestic violence or sexual assault. it's really hard to explain why, what eyes are the republicans looking through that they do not

see the followy of their -- folly of their ways on this legislation they are proposing. not only is it much weaker than the senate bill, it is much weaker than current law. and that is why, that is why whatever groups you want to name, whether it's 1,300 groups opposed from a to y. we don't have a z. any groups that have anything to do throughout our country in every state oppose the republican legislation that is on the floor today. that is why the american bar association has stated in its letter to members in opposition to the republican bill, it says, the house substitute eliminates certain critical improvements and actually rolls back some provisions of the law that has been successful.

so let's understand the difference between these two pieces of legislation that are on the floor today. our bill, again, a reflection of the bipartisan bill in the senate, says to all of america's women, you will be protected. the republican bill says to the men and women of america, we want to protect america's women. everybody step forward who is an american woman, not so fast if you are an immigrant -- from the immigrant community, if you're a native american, if you happen to be part of the lgbt community. it's just not right. america has always been and our constitution demonstrates a country of expanding opportunity and protection and diminishing discrimination. today on the floor of the house the republican bill discriminates against a woman if

she is lesbian or gay or whatever, lgbt, any member of that community, discriminates against the woman if she lives on a reservation and has been assaulted by someone not from the reservation. discriminates against women in terms of their immigration status. exactly the women who are the most vulnerable who have a situation where there is a power over them, whether it's immigration law or whatever, the most in need of this bill are excluded by the republican, the republican proposal. so this is nothing to be proud of, this republican proposal. it must be defeated. and its defeat will enable us to bring to the floor the senate party overwhelmingly passed and

supported legislation which strengthens current law not weakens it and expands the legislation, which was -- i was here when the bill passed before. i saw the great work of pat schroeder and louise slaughter who argued so beautifully for this legislation yesterday as the rankling democrat on the rules committee. i salute the work of joe biden who was the author without vice president biden at that time, there would not have been a violence against women act. and i was so proud of the work of our chairman and a leader on this legislation then and now, chairman john conyers, former chair of the judiciary committee , now ranking member. we'll be hearing more from him shortly. but he has been there steady and

strong as a champion in the fight to end violence against women. thank you. our legislation today, the house propose -- the democratic proposal, which is really -- is a bipartisan proposal from the senate, but it's authored and presented by congresswoman gwen moore of wisconsin. congresswoman gwen moore has shared her own personal story with us and the strength of her knowledge of the issue, whether it's knowledge of the legislation or knowledge of the trauma of domestic violence and assault, is something that has impressed so many of us. and when we pass this legislation, and we will, it will be in large measure because of her leadership, her persistence, her wisdom, her knowledge of this issue and the difference that every word in

the legislation means in the homes of america and for women who are at risk. now, who thinks this is a good idea? i don't know. i hear the gentlewoman who commands great respect in this body describe this bill as if it's a good thing. it is not. when -- why would this take so long? it's been over 500 days, madam speaker, 500 days, my colleagues, since the expiration of the violence against women act. last spring, almost one year ago, april of last year, the senate in a bipartisan way passed violence against women act. in a bipartisan way. months have gone by with no re-authorization, congress ended a new congress came in, the senate once again voted, again, in a strong bipartisan way, for legislation. the house republicans want to be

odd man out on this, or odd person out on this. and have a bill that is weakened -- has weakened current law as well as does not rise to the occasion of changing times that the senate bill does. other of my colleagues will go into more of the specifics of it, and i -- it's just too much to put into the record of all the groups who oppose the house bill. it is almost unanimous. the only people holding out were those hopeful that something, light would be shed on this on the republican side of the aisle. but this is a remarkable day because we have clarity between the two proposals that are coming forth. one of them has the support of democrats and republicans in the senate. democrats in the house. the president of the united states stands ready to sign it.

the other is opposed by almost everybody who has anything to do with addressing the challenge of violence against women, and we have the documentation to prove that. and it goes into the specific -- that go into the specifics. but i just want to say that -- how proud i am of congresswoman gwen moore. she comes from wisconsin. she is a respected leader in the house. she has made this -- i would say her life's work, but she has a number of things on her agenda, but she has made a tremendous difference. not only in terms of this legislation, but more importantly in terms of what it means, what it means in the lives of america's women. all of america's women. with that, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance

of her time. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: just to make a couple of clarifications. number one, the house, led by the republicans, passed legislation in early may last year to re-authorize the violence against women act. number two, funding has continued. $599 million. at this time i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from north dakota, kevin cramer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields how much time to the gentleman from north dakota? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, madam speaker. just under three years ago, a 2-year-old little boy in bismarck, north dakota, watched for half an hour while his stepfather beat his mother to death. today that little boy is my 5-year-old son. chris and i were blessed and are blessed, have been able to adopt, where we work every day to dilute the memories of that

awful night with new memories of love and affection. i know the scourge of violence against women personally. it is not an abstract concept to my family. it's very real. that is why i support and will vote today for the violence against women act, because i want the shelters and programs that keep women safe to be well funded. i want the advocates of change to have the resources, to turn victims into victors. i want the law enforcement officers and the prosecutors to have the tools to impose justice on behalf of my son and other women and children. it's not just theoretical to me, it's personal to me. while i support the violence against women act because it's personal, i support this amendment because it's principled. our constitution in its genius guarantees due process. due process to the accused. the concept of innocent until

proven guilty is known as the cornerstone of american justice. it is what gives moral authority to our system of justice. by codifying language like acknowledging inherent sovereignty, i fear we risk giving up the moral high ground for a political slogan that does nothing to protect the victims of violence. even if you are willing to rationalize trading justice through due process, guaranteed in the fifth and 14th amendments of our constitution, we pledged to uphold, please consider the damage we will have done if a court overturns this act and its protections all so that we want -- because we want add good political slogan more than a good law. friends, let's vote for the violence against women act. it not only protects the vulnerable in our society, but also protects the civil liberties upon which our system of justice is built. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentlelady reserves. . the gentlelady from california. ms. pelosi: i yield to the gentlelady from wisconsin, congresswoman moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. as i stand here, i pray that this body will do as the senate has done and come together as one, to protect all women from violence. as i think about the lgbt victims that are not here, the native americans that are not here, the immigrants that are not included in this bill, i will say, ain't they women? they deserve protections.

we talk about the constitutional rights. don't women on tribal lands deserve the constitutional right of equal protection and not to be raped and battered and beaten and dragged back onto native lands because they know they can be raped with impunity? ain't they women? and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i recognize a champion and prosecuting those with domestic violence in domestic violence situations, pat meehan from pennsylvania, the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: what time does the gentlewoman yield? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to put aside this rhetoric and to find a way to work together to pass the violence against women act, to move this important legislation forward in a way in which we

can reach a resolution. i come to this as a former prosecutor who has seen firsthand the implications, come to give voice to people who do not have an opportunity to speak for themselves, because one of the things that we realize is that a woman will be victimized 12 times, beaten 12 times before she has the courage to come forward to speak to somebody who needs to be there to be able to help give them a sense of comfort and dignity to be able to retain control over the circumstances. the violence against women act enables the kinds of resources to be there to have the trained personnel who can make a difference. i had a chance to visit sane nurses who work in emergency wards, giving victims of rape the dignity to be able to do an examination in the privacy of a room as opposed to being violated a second time out in a public space in an emergency ward, to reduce the time they have to spend for that

examination from 13 hours after a rape to two hours to be able to collect the evidence and help that victim to be able to make their case if they so choose in court. i have seen the chance to work with victims of -- on college campuses, women on college campuses who have reported they have been victims of rape or attempted rape. so unquestionably, we must find a way to pass the violence against women act in the same way we must reduce the rhetoric and the misrepresentations and the shameful misrepresentations on both sides about the good intentions to try to do this. there are differences of opinion in small areas. we must find a way to get over those. i rise today to make sure we give a voice to those victims, to work together to find a way to pass the violence against women act. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i

yield one minute to the gentlewoman from washington state, congresswoman delbene. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. delbene: i want to thank the speaker for bringing this bill to the floor for a debate, at a time when we must resolve some real disgrments on how to move our country -- disagreements on how to move our country forward. i am glad we're going to pass the landmark violence against women act. however, i cannot support the house substitute amendment because it fails to improve critical improvements passed by a large bipartisan margin in the senate that would strengthen our efforts to combat violence against women. i'm particularly disappointed that this amendment owe mitts provisions that would enable tribes to address domestic violence in indian country. this is an issue that's critical in my district. the lumme nation, comprks, which i visited just last week in bellingham, washington, have seen an increase in violence

against women over the past several years. the house substitute would require mistreatment of indian and non-indian offenders while the bipartisan senate bill fill this gap. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment and support the senate re-authorization bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. cap it toe: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, violence against women act -- mrs. capito: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, the violence against women act. i witnessed firsthand the good work that they do and that other statewide advocates do in this area of sexual assault and

violence against women, and i realize this is way long overdue and necessary. in west virginia every nine minutes a call comes in, is made about our domestic violence on the doosk violence hotline. -- domestic violence hotline. i'm here to talk about an incident that we don't want to see happen again. i want to talk about jalele. he was in a car with his mother and his mother's boyfriend and his mother's boyfriend began beating his mother. and he got so afraid, and the car stopped on the interstate, jalele got out of that car and started running across the interstate to get help for his mother. and he was hit and killed in the interstate because he was witnessing firsthand one of the most horrible acts of domestic violence. his mother was in danger, and he wanted to help her. and if we don't intervene, if we don't find help, if we don't

end the cycle of violence for the jalele clements of this country, we're doing a great disservice to our country. i'm going to be voting no on the house bill and yes on the senate bill for jalele clements and all the jalele clements in this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i yield one minute to the chair of the house democratic caucus, mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. becerra: i thank the leader for yielding. my friends, every single day in america, three women die at the hands of domestic violence. yet, this congress allowed the violence against women act to expire more than 500 days ago. every one of those 500 days, three women dying at the hands of domestic violence. there's been a balanced bipartisan solution passed in the senate by a vote of 68-31 that has been sitting on the table for almost a year to

re-enact the violence against women act. the failure or reluctance of this house to do its work for the american people seems to have now become business as usual. this should not be the new normal. the 113th congress has now been in session for 56 days in 2013, and it has only now that a debate on an up or down vote on the bipartisan senate bill will have an opportunity to be had. every woman in america deserves a clean bill to come before them to re-enact the violence against women act, and those three women in america who today desperately seek to beat the odds and live to see another day deserve a vote. we must defeat the republican substitute amendment and pass the senate bipartisan bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized.

ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congressman from california, a physician and a new member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. bera: today i rise as a doctor to talk about the patients i've taken care of who suffered as victims of domestic violence. as a doctor, we don't choose to treat one patient or another patient. we choose to take care of every patient. we choose to protect all women in america. that is who we are as a nation. we choose to protect protect all women in america. i urge this body to reject the house version of this bill and pass the bipartisan senate version. that is a reflection of who we are in america and our values. as the father of a daughter,

this is personal. i want my daughter to grow up in a country where we value and respect every woman regardless of background, ethnicity, creed. this is personal, and let's do the right thing. i urge this body to do the right thing today and pass the senate version of the violence against women act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to a champion on protecting women and protecting them from violence, congresswoman jan schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: violence is violence is violence and women are women are women. for the second year in a row, the republicans have advanced legislation that not only

excludes additional protections for battered immigrant women and battered tribal women and battered gay women, protections that are included in the bipartisan senate bill, but they've advanced a bill that actually rolls back the central protection that are already the law of the land. we've heard from law enforcement, victims and victim service providers on the need to pass the improvements included in the bipartisan senate bill. and last week more than 1,300 organizations who represent and support millions of victims nationwide join together and said to bring the senate bill to the house floor for, quote, a vote as speedly as possible. we need to pass the senate-passed legislation so that victims of domestic and sexual violence don't have to wait a minute longer and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentlewoman

from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to remind the body that the house amendment actually increases protections for everyone. no protection is denied. at this time i'm happy to yield to the gentlelady from indiana two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> madam speaker, thank you. i rise today to urge passage of the violence against women re-authorization act of 2013. let me start off by saying that i support this bill because it's the right thing to do. i'm committed to ending violence against all women. this bill takes the necessary steps to protect the rights of all of our mothers, our daughters and wives. the statistics are appalling. it's reported that in the united states alone more than 24 people each minute are victims of some sort of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. mrs. walorski: that equals more

than 12 million individuals each year. these types of crimes happen to individuals from all walks of life. no gender, race, ethnicity or socioeconomic status is immune. this bill provides protection for everyone who may be victim of sexual violence. this bill makes programs more effective. these reforms prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted. they ensure that more money is being used to assist victims and reduce the amount of violence that happens against women. by eliminating a amount of money that can be spent on salaries anded a minute straightive costs, this bill -- and administrative costs, this bill maximizes the amount of funding that goes directly to the victims. madam speaker, it's time for us to do the right thing and pass this bill. a constituent of mine from south bend, indiana, recently wrote my office.

she said, and i quote, as a woman who has experienced domestic violence and stalking in my own home and as a physician who has cared for persons affected by domestic violence, i see this as an important tool to improve the quality of life in our nation. i urge the members of this chamber, both republican and democrat, to do the right thing and pass this bill today. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back, and the gentlewoman from washington state reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, freshman member, congress woman -- i'm glaming everybody in california -- from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. frankel: i rise in opposition to the house substitute amendment and urge the support of the bipartisan violence against women act sent

over by the senate. . i do so on behalf of women like olga who thought she entered into a dream marriage for herself and her two small children. the marriage turned into a nightmare when her husband became insulting, aggressive, controlling, and like a stranger. imprisoning olga and her children in their own home. not even allowing the children to go to school. she fled to south florida and nurtured back to emotional and financial health by an organization in my home area called women in distress. the senate's re-authorization of the violence against women act will save even more lives across america, lives like olga and all women who have been abused by their spouse or partner. so today, colleagues, let's stand up for our mothers, sisters, and our daughters and

pass the bipartisan senate bill. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington investigate. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to congressman keating of mass marks former prosecutor and champion on fighting for america's women. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: one meant to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. keating: thank you. madam speaker, i was a d.a. for 12 years. i solicited and actually used these funds. so as we talk about issues, people see issues, i see faces. i see faces of innocent women who are victims. and i see faces of the perpetrators themselves, the rapists, the batterers, the abusers who sought to isolate

these victims. strip them away from their friends, their family, social service agencies, law enforcement. i used these funds to create a life line to these victims. breaking down walls that exist in terms of people who spoke a different language, had a different culture, had a different national. -- nationality. madam speaker, this amendment creates walls, creates these barriers that make the victims more vulnerable and strengthens the hand of the perpetrators. please, all of you, join me in voting against this amendment. and then, then let's all join togetherle with a piece of legislation that does not punish the victim -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. keating: behind bars. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman continues to reserve. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to another champion for protecting women, mr. larsen of washington state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. larsen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the bipartisan senate version of the violence against women act that we vote on today. we wouldn't be here today without the courage of victims from all of our communities. women and men, rich and poor, immigrants, native american, folks from the lgbt community. all those who spoke out about their experiences. domestic violence does not discriminate. and with this bill domestic violence protection will no longer discriminate. this bill improves protections for immigrants, for native americans, members of the lgbt community. in my district a vice chair explained why the protections are so critical. she told me that for far too long native american women have lacked serious protections on our reservations. this bill will make it easier

for them to seek justice. and it also includes important amendments to improve enforcement of the international marriage broker regulation act, a law that i sponsored in 2006. those amendments strengthen protections congress put in place for immigrant women like ms. king who was murdered in my district by her husband in 2000. i urge my colleagues to he oppose the house vawa substitute and to pass s. 47. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomans to reserve. we recognize the gentlewoman from california. ms. pelosi: may i respectfully request the time of the:00. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 22 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from california has -- washington has 20 3/4 minutes remaining.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you. madam speaker, member of congress who has been really a champion on this issue for a very long time, congresswoman lois capps of california, health professional in her own right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for how long? ms. pelosi: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the leader for yielding and i rise today in opposition to the republican amendment that would undermine key provisions in the violence against women act re-authorization. and to urge strong support for the underlying senate bill which protects our young people on our school campuses. vawa is a vital program addressing violence women holisically through prevention programs, survivor supports, and provisions to hold perpetrators accountable. but also a symbol that relationship violence and sexual assault is real and that it's unacceptable. has been a symbol until this congress we can put aside our

differences and come together to do what is right for violence victims and survivors. we saw this in the senate. and we'll hopefully see it here in the house. this is still true. our daughters, our sisters, mothers, no matter where they are, including on our school campuses, deserve to live without fear of abuse, and we cannot delay their safety any longer. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the senate bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman wields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from new jersey one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise this morning to speak in favor of s. 47, the senate version of the violence against women act. i want to thank speaker boehner and leader cantor for their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor.

the bombom line is the programs health save lives in new jersey and across america. we need to expand the current success of vawa so that we can get even more women, help even more women escape the nightmare of domestic violence. mr. runyan: while we are long overdue in passing this bill, i am glad we are here today and i urge my colleagues to support s. 47, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congresswoman kirkpatrick of arizona, who has, again, every day, every step of the way, been helpful in protecting all women, especially those on reservations. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mrs. kirkpatrick: i was born and raised on the white mountain of apache nation. the necklace i wear was made by

an apache woman. i have seen firsthand the troubled and hardships our tribes experience. now i represent 12 native american tribes and i'm here standing on the floor of congress to give them a voice. our native american women who need resources and protection face great hardships. they often live in very remote areas. unfortunately native american women are 2 1/2 times more likely to be assaulted in their lifetimes than other women. as a prosecutor i also saw firsthand the need to protect those who are vulnerable. that's why i pushed so hard for the bipartisan senate passed version of this legislation. this legislation strengthens protections for native american women and so many others. my district needs this legislation. i urge my colleagues from both sides to come together and pass

the senate version of the violence against women act today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, congresswoman lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. first of all let me thank leader pelosi and congresswoman gwen moore for their tremendous leadership to re-authorize the violence against women act. today we have the opportunity to really stand up for tribal women, the lbgt community, imgrant women, women all across the united states and finally pass the strongly bipartisan senate version of the violence against women re-authorization act. we should have done this a long time ago. after much grandstanding, feet dragging, and shameful politicking over protecting the right for all women to feel safe in their homes and workplace, i

hope today that finally we can come together to say that violence against any woman is never an option. when i was in the california legislature, i authored the violence against women act for the state of california, and it was signed into law by a republican governor. it was indeed a bipartisan effort. as someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply personal level, i know how traumatic it is, and i know the strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a survivor. that is what the senate's vawa re-authorization will accomplish for all women. i don't mean for some women. i mean for all women. i urge us to vote no on the amendment and yes on the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the champion on our side of the aisle for the re-authorization of this important legislation, our majority leader, eric cantor, for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentlelady. and congratulate her on her leadership on this issue. as chairwoman of our conference, as a strong advocate for families for women, for children in our conversation -- conference salute her and her efforts to improve the ability for individuals, women who are subject to domestic abuse to get the relief that they need. and in that spirit today, madam speaker, i come to the floor in support of the substitute and the amendment that we are offering today. today, madam speaker, a mother and her daughter will go to a shelter seeking safe harbor because they are scared. another young woman will walk into a hospital emergency room seeking treatment from sexual assault. in some cases women will wait to

report haven't crimes because they don't feel there is a support system in place to help them. our goal in strengthening the violence against women act is simple. we want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive, and dangerous situations. we want to make sure all women are safe and have access to the resources they need to protect themselves, their children, and their families. we want them to know that somebody is there and willing to help. and we want them to know that those who commit these horrendous crimes will be punished and not let go. madam speaker, that's why we feel so strongly about providing the proper support system and needed relief to thousands ever victims and survivors so that they can get on with their lives. for the past several months we have worked hard in this house to build consensus and to put together the strongest bill possible to improve on that

which came from the senate. today i encourage my colleagues to support the house amendment to the violence against women act in order to end violence against all people, against all women, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from washington reserves, the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, who has been a champion for ending violence against women for all, all, all women in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. lujan: madam speaker, last congress it was with great disappointment that for the first time since the violence against women act was signed into law in 1994, house republicans failed to give us a vote and congress failed to re-authorize this important legislation that has reduced domestic abuse and provided domestic abuse and provided victims of